Mankind Reborn and Money

Ferin

Dilettante

Contributor
Jun 17, 2017
132
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I think the necessity of F2P depends on the marketing and business strategy leading up to it being a market ready product.

In my view there needs to be a minimum of 6 months open beta where the factions and power structures can develop. This OB period is essential for drawing back FOM vets who will largely be responsible for generating the RP and social content.

Maybe I'm wrong but there seems to be some naivety on the current windfalls of the gaming industry. With many people mad over no man's sky/over exaggerated marketing, loot boxes, pay win etc, players and influencers are becoming more guarded over their spending.

While it is also true that there are some gamers willing to drop hundreds and potentially thousands on a games (see EAs recent stock rate increase), the potential value and content from more players is difficult to quantify. So I think deciding on no F2P elements will be a missed opportunity unless there is an extensive free period (ie OB).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tod Maddux

Hari Seldon

Advocate

Alpha Tester
Patron
Jun 17, 2017
210
Cloning
No Faction
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
With either Buy or Free to play models there is a pretty sizeable chance that those that were going to leave negative reviews for silly reasons or for legitimately not getting on with the game will do so regardless of if they are shelling out upfront, f2p, paying a sub or whatever monetisation method you have. That is the poison chalice of Steam's massive audience. It might add a bit of vitriol but if they are going to scream at the game (because say their solo merc idea didn't work out) they will call it pay to win if it is F2P, call devs bias in sub model and so on. They will find some muck to fling. It's more a question of finding a price point and an issue of marketing to make sure people have a fair idea of what they are investing time/money in while obviously still selling the product and drawing in players, that is never easy.

Unlike say an arena shooter, MOBA, strategy ect which may take time to master but more or less has everything the game offers in reach from the first session on, MR is more of an MMORPG than anything else with a requirement of a fair bit of time to start getting places and seeing what the game has on offer. That definitely makes it harder to involve steam curators, influencers, content creators (and whatever other names that make my skin crawl which people use for these jobless schmucks) in the useful way that can sometimes take some of the sting out of Steam's platform if you have made a quality product. MR I think should avoid the label of an asset flip at the least which already sets it apart from far too many games on Steam. Given this is an indie game though the majority of those people would probably want to one and done a "first impression" in so far as they would care at all which for an MMO like MR is realistically not a substantially legitimate or useful review of the game.

The best bet it seems to me to make sure people can have a fair go of knowing what they are being asked to spend money on would be a free trial but one handled off steam, have a banner somewhere that points people to your website where they can DL a client and set up a trial account that has no limitations or drawbacks beyond lasting only a set time period, say two days. Might seem a bit janky and something people could still miss but if the trial is off steam you A) have more control over its terms B) if someone gets a case of the salt shakes they are more likely to just dump the game without bothering to drop a rage-filled review. You might be able to do the same thing via steam itself and rely on people to differentiate the trial account reviews from longer term ones. Another potential snag I am not sure about the difficultly of integrating an actual steam purchase version with trial accounts for merging, legit just not to merge them at all, yes offering up a new chance to annoy people but you should be fine as long as you tell people up front.

Alternatively have F2P and keep releasing a series of micro-transaction choked mobile games to try and trick the general public into supporting our collective shooty-ecoy-shouty-mans habit.
 
Last edited:

Hoodwink

Dweller

Alpha Tester
Patron
Dec 17, 2017
21
Vancouver, BC
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
With either Buy or Free to play models there is a pretty sizeable chance that those that were going to leave negative reviews for silly reasons or for legitimately not getting on with the game will do so regardless of if they are shelling out upfront, f2p, paying a sub or whatever monetisation method you have. That is the poison chalice of Steam's massive audience. It might add a bit of vitriol but if they are going to scream at the game (because say their solo merc idea didn't work out) they will call it pay to win if it is F2P, call devs bias in sub model and so on. They will find some muck to fling. It's more a question of finding a price point and an issue of marketing to make sure people have a fair idea of what they are investing time/money in while obviously still selling the product and drawing in players, that is never easy.

Unlike say an arena shooter, MOBA, strategy ect which may take time to master but more or less has everything the game offers in reach from the first session on, MR is more of an MMORPG than anything else with a requirement of a fair bit of time to start getting places and seeing what the game has on offer. That definitely makes it harder to involve steam curators, influencers, content creators (and whatever other names that make my skin crawl which people use for these jobless schmucks) in the useful way that can sometimes take some of the sting out of Steam's platform if you have made a quality product. MR I think should avoid the label of an asset flip at the least which already sets it apart from far too many games on Steam. Given this is an indie game though the majority of those people would probably want to one and done a "first impression" in so far as they would care at all which for an MMO like MR is realistically not a substantially legitimate or useful review of the game.

The best bet it seems to me to make sure people can have a fair go of knowing what they are being asked to spend money on would be a free trial but one handled off steam, have a banner somewhere that points people to your website where they can DL a client and set up a trial account that has no limitations or drawbacks beyond lasting only a set time period, say two days. Might seem a bit janky and something people could still miss but if the trial is off steam you A) have more control over its terms B) if someone gets a case of the salt shakes they are more likely to just dump the game without bothering to drop a rage-filled review. You might be able to do the same thing via steam itself and rely on people to differentiate the trial account reviews from longer term ones. Another potential snag I am not sure about the difficultly of integrating an actual steam purchase version with trial accounts for merging, legit just not to merge them at all, yes offering up a new chance to annoy people but you should be fine as long as you tell people up front.

Alternatively have F2P and keep releasing a series of micro-transaction choked mobile games to try and trick the general public into supporting out collective shooty-ecoy-shouty-mans habit.
Death to shooty-ecoy-shouty-mans habit?! Maybe?!
 

Winston

Taxpayer

Nov 5, 2017
28
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Maybe occasional "free weekends" could be a good compromise between permanent free trials and B2P only.
People try the game for a few days, without restrictions, if they like it they buy and get to keep their character. Since it will be some kind of event, I'm sure factions would even organize to welcome and guide new players during these weekends, increasing player retention.

A lot of people are going to pass on the game if they can't even try it for a bit before shelling out ~30$. And we all know how sandbox games end up when there is low population.
 
Apr 11, 2018
4
Oda Zaibatsu
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Albion Online has a buy to play and premium subscription system in which players can choose to pay with silver or premium gold which can be bought with in game silver or with real world money. It seems to be working fine however I feel like the system is somewhat limiting the playerbase. At the same time I also feel like it keeps out the gold farmers and trash that comes along when an MMO becomes f2p.
 

RitchieGunz

Dweller

Jul 5, 2018
7
The Syndicate
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Maybe occasional "free weekends" could be a good compromise between permanent free trials and B2P only.
People try the game for a few days, without restrictions, if they like it they buy and get to keep their character. Since it will be some kind of event, I'm sure factions would even organize to welcome and guide new players during these weekends, increasing player retention.
I think the necessity of F2P depends on the marketing and business strategy leading up to it being a market ready product.

In my view there needs to be a minimum of 6 months open beta where the factions and power structures can develop. This OB period is essential for drawing back FOM vets who will largely be responsible for generating the RP and social content.
I like both these points.

I am completely against F2P BECAUSE of the randos. This game is meant to be a Roleplaying MMO. By making it B2P, you increase the percent of people who intend to remain in the realms of RP. Randos just fuck around to fuck around and usually just troll and don't add any REAL content to the game which will throw of any new players that would actually try to enjoy the game. I'd rather have a lower-level of trolls.

Sure, 2 hours isn't long enough to enjoy the game but an OUTSTANDING tutorial should be enough to grease the wheels. Straight-to-the-point literature, no drawn-out quests, something real concise but can cover a great deal. "Free weekend" events is an excellent idea.

The game so far already has a decent following and as word of mouth spreads, it reach into the communities of former FoM members. This game is doing everything FoM couldn't do or chose not to do. So Im sure marketing will be a top priority of theirs. Developer content is already helping immensely.

This model of B2P is essential in creating a STABLE population (not amount of people but the content the game creates). F2P absolutely destroy games when they are first being introduced. There is no room for the game to develop as there is not a "same page" mentality. Years down the line, I'm fine with it becoming F2P as long as it doesn't become a cash grab. There will be enough people at games release to start releasing content and attract an audience. Say what you want, but I don't need to play a game to know if I'll buy it, thanks to content creators.

I'm absolutely confident in the fact that these guys are going to do all the right things to get this game to where it needs to be without having to sucuumb to the level of F2P just to get a population. We as the players will be responsible for that.
 

Royoun

Clone

Aug 13, 2018
3
No Faction
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
A lot good points have already been raised and it seems evident that Far Frontier Studios has already determined their survival model so I'll try not to repeat too much.

Hard Hat Harry said:
Why would a non-FoMer drop 30 bucks on a niche market game they're not even sure they'll like?
This is an important point. Like many people, I must have still been in my teens when I found FoM and I can guarantee I would not have spent $30 USD on it before I played this wonderful game. Of course, while I would happily pay that now knowing what the game is, FoM was a niche genre in an incredibly competitive field (i.e. MMOs). It wasn't connected to any other game or lore of any kind and its gameplay was almost entirely based around role playing as opposed to leveling and NPC quests/missions. A player progressed in the game entirely by their interaction and involvement with other players and it was virtually impossible to get anywhere without doing so. All successful MMOs today are successful for reasons that have been understood for some years now and there's a good reason that new MMOs attempt to imitate successful models, as a majority of those who attempt to deviate from them (i.e. any sandbox game) fail in the market being unable to sustain themselves. What was the common model we see in the graveyard of sandbox games ? Buy-to-play followed by pay-to-win profit model when they find themselves on their last legs, desperate for new players.

Grukan said:
Free accounts fill the world out with interactable players who each have their own storylines and motives. You don't just give players access to the game for free for them to try it. You offer it because how many players would we have missed out on without it? Basically all of BoS. How many other factions were filled out with countless free accounts? How much longer did FoM's run take it because premium players kept paying for a game that had at least a decent player count?
Hard Hat Harry said:
Basically, as Che said, we need randos running around. No MMO project is going to have an entire population of serious players. If you're going to sell it, at least make it something like 5-10 bucks until the game gets a good rep.
Timewise, FoM outlasted all other sandbox games as for a long time there was a healthy population with new players frequently passing by to satisfy their curiosities. As Grukan has said, this kept the playerbase at levels that made the world seem alive, adding to the premium paying players and kept premium players paying. If it were buy-to-play from the beginning, it would have died long before it actually did. Even though it was perhaps one of the greatest games I had ever played, the appeal just didn't exist for many others.

Why do sandbox games fail ? It's something I'm sure many people have wondered. I think we can gather a good understanding by listening to the people who play financially successful games talk about the "endgame" and how there's nothing to do once a player reaches a certain point impelling the developers to constantly create new frontiers to explore and conquer and so on. These grievances are very common in online games and make me wonder what players who enjoy such games would think of FoM. For many such players, FoM was like playing in an "endgame world" without any visible paths of progression as is commonly understood. In FoM everything was born and died with the players so "new content" was constantly coming into being simply because people imagined that they were living in this little world and the world changed all the time. Everyday was a new adventure because people wanted to enjoy themselves as players of the game, but this is alien to people who play games and expect that the developers constantly create new quests/missions and so on. Nevertheless, FoM had a great business model that made it both F2P and profitable without becoming pay-to-win, but it was horribly managed to the point of its demise. I believe that it's just important to accept that sandbox games (especially ones in which progression and achievement are not counted by numbers) are not appealing to many people and this means that, if they will be going with a B2P model as they've said, Far Frontier will require good marketing from the very release of the game if they are to sustain it. Of course, this marketing could come passively by popular Youtube people praising the game or whatever, but this is a risk I would perhaps not be willing to take personally.

Grukan said:
You don't have the following to bank on people willing to pay to play and populate your game. Look how many games are on Steam now. What makes this one stand out? Why are people going to drop money up front on an unheard of game from a studio with no track record.
CheSquatt said:
So people are gonna need to look at the game and think "I'm willing to risk X amount of money and my time for this game that is probably gonna be half done, buggy, and become vaporware, but has an off-chance of being super cool." (I'm not saying that's the product your making, I'm saying the track record for this sort of game is very bad and consumer attitudes are going to reflect that.)
Hard Hat Harry said:
Why would a person not familiar with this genre/project want to drop 30 dollars? Even with more bad reviews, people are more likely to give it a chance if they don't have to invest their money into it. Of course you'll have us gladly paying, but I am skeptical new people would want to join.
Agree wholeheartedly with these thoughts. Without aggressive marketing, MR will be banking on Youtube for promotion.

Hard Hat Harry said:
If I'm already donor plus, will I need to pay again to get the game?
I wonder why this hasn't been answered yet :confused: From what I gather, even the highest donator is not even guaranteed the game itself. But perhaps I'm just missing something.
 

BioXide

Founder

Staff member
Lead Developer
Management
Jun 1, 2017
447
Portland, Oregon
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: Princeps (R7)
Service Points: 999999
1. We are not doing F2P for multiple valid reasons, f2p is viable when you have a big team that covers many areas of development, especially on the security side. We are a small team, working on this during our free time and we don't have the manpower now to support a f2p model, b2p is the way to go with a service model.

2. We haven't officially announced the final price of the game, we are aiming for a low entry cost of around $10-$20 with more services included, we previously set the price around $25-$30 with less services, but nowadays it's a lot harder to sell higher priced games due to fortnite and other f2p games. All of this of course, is still in talks and we won't be able to give an accurate estimate until we're in beta.

3. If you've donated $30+, you'll get the game for free and will be compensated in cash shop currency, premium, etc, depending how much money you've donated. We've already mentioned this multiple times in discord and in the forums.
 

Drakxon

Taxpayer

Alpha Tester
Patron
Aug 26, 2018
39
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Here is my question if we pay into the current donations will we be grandfathered in or will we have to buy the game as well? Also I agree with Grukan because the "free accounts" are possible customers/revenue. If we want to talk about older days of FoM, it was originally a sub to play game and in the beginning that and Ojom kind of killed it. Lack of players, Ojom was a telephone provider originally, server was laggy at times due to Ojom.
 

Necidious

Community Manager

Staff member
Management
Jun 1, 2017
702
Antwerp, BE
Oda Zaibatsu
Rank: President of the T.U.
Service Points: 2400
Here is my question if we pay into the current donations will we be grandfathered in or will we have to buy the game as well? Also I agree with Grukan because the "free accounts" are possible customers/revenue.
Those who donated 30 dollars or more will receive the base game as well later down the road. However, we will be revising our donation rewards soon, so you may want to upgrade then. :)
 

Drakxon

Taxpayer

Alpha Tester
Patron
Aug 26, 2018
39
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Those who donated 30 dollars or more will receive the base game as well later down the road. However, we will be revising our donation rewards soon, so you may want to upgrade then. :)
Well I can't till I get paid this next coming weekend and pay my bills etc. How soon will things be as they are?